The Republican Thread

[Texsox]

Why not? We all hear how Obama is black and we can't be mean to him. because it would be racist.

Great point. Someone in this contest should take the gloves off and really start with some hard hitting attack ads.

[mr_genius]

From the McCain campaign:

 

“Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses? Does a guy who worries about the price of arugula and thinks regular people ‘cling’ to guns and religion in the face of economic hardship really want to have a debate about who’s in touch with regular Americans?”

 

 

haha burn

[mr_genius]

Racist = someone who's winning an argument with a liberal.

 

[mr_genius]

I just saw the new Obama attack ad, it's really not very good. i think most people already know Obama and McCain are rich.

[Balta1701]

I just saw the new Obama attack ad, it's really not very good. i think most people already know Obama and McCain are rich.

Not by Senator McCain's definition

[mr_genius]

Not by Senator McCain's definition

 

i think even with the laughable quote you are basing that on, they are both still rich

[EvilMonkey]

OK, time for a quiz. in the last year, how many times have Obama and Mccain appeared on the cover of Time?

 

Obama:

7

 

McCain:

2

[mr_genius]

OK, time for a quiz. in the last year, how many times have Obama and Mccain appeared on the cover of Time?

 

Obama:

7

 

McCain:

2

 

Obama 19,000

 

McCain 6

 

but all 6 of the McCain covers were about how he is a total jerk

 

 

Edited August 22, 2008 by mr_genius

[EvilMonkey]

If Obama can be forgiven for forgetting that there are only 50 states, then maybe he should cut mcCain some slack, eh?

[Balta1701]

i think even with the laughable quote you are basing that on, they are both still rich

While I'll agree with you on that, he's actually right around the level of Senator McCain's definition, and probably a bit under it. When he entered the race he reported assets somewhere between $456,000 and $1.1 million. After some Googling I can't find the exact value of their house, but they paid $1.65 million for it in 2006, and paid an additional $0.1 million for the extra land bought from Rezko. The Obamas reported a 2007 income of $4.2 million, $1.3 million of which was paid to the government. If you add $2.9 million to their previous assets, then they were probably still under $5 million at the start of this fiscal year by roughly a million dollars or so. However, if they continued earning at the same rate as last year they probably became rich under Senator McCain's definition quite recently.

[mr_genius]

i like how McCain even said 'this is going to be totally misquoted' or something along those lines

 

presidential insight

 

Edited August 22, 2008 by mr_genius

[EvilMonkey]

Just a question: Obama has said that he won't take money from PACS and the eeeevil oil companies.

In a statement today, Obama spokesman Bill Burton, reiterated that Obama doesn’t take PAC money or money from federal registered lobbyists, and “that includes oil companies and oil lobbyists.”

 

We all know that he has been getting lots of donations from eeeevil oil company empoyees, but what i want to know is why are PACS bad, but partisan advocacy groups like MoveOn.Org (really, a PAC) good? Just asking, because they have donated over $200,000 to Obama, and if that isn't enough for influence, I am not surte what is.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php...;cmte=C00341396

 

And of the top 20 PACS, 16 of them donated much more to Dems than to Repubs.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/toppacs.php

 

Maybe it is only that SOME PACS are bad (you know, the ones that donate to Republicans), and others are good. Also notice how most of them are unions or other similar associations.

[EvilMonkey]

I guess Obama's vacation wasn't all play.

 

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13742

 

Teleprompting Obama

By The Prowler

Published 8/21/2008 12:08:19 AM

SCREEN SAVORER

According to several Democrat political consultants presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama spent part of his Hawaiian vacation working on weaning himself from a heavy dependence on teleprompters. Even in what are staged as "town hall" events for Obama, remarks are scripted or formatted into bullet points that scroll on teleprompter screens. Obama has had several embarrassing events where the teleprompter either malfunctioned or the screens were not fully visible.

 

"He just locks down and can't get the words out," says one political consultant. "For such a fine speaker, it's really quite remarkable that he's had issues."

 

Obama's troubles with unscripted moments contributed to his campaign's refusal to participate in town hall format debates or discussions with Sen. John McCain, who feels much more comfortable in the unscripted moments.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Not by Senator McCain's definition

 

Then again by Senator Obama's definition I am rich, because my taxes would go up under his plans.

[kapkomet]

Then again by Senator Obama's definition I am rich, because my taxes would go up under his plans.

Tell me about it.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Wow. The snark level in the Buster seems to have dramatically increased in the last 24 hours. Probably indicative of the sudden wave of attack ads by the candidates.

 

This is not good strategy by Obama. McCain had been doing nothing BUT going on about how bad Obama is, far more so than the other way around. And I think Obama should have kept it that way, as it seemed to work in his favor. Getting into a war of petty bulls*** (and I find these housing, class and richie-rich arguments just that) only helps McCain.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Wow. The snark level in the Buster seems to have dramatically increased in the last 24 hours. Probably indicative of the sudden wave of attack ads by the candidates.

 

This is not good strategy by Obama. McCain had been doing nothing BUT going on about how bad Obama is, far more so than the other way around. And I think Obama should have kept it that way, as it seemed to work in his favor. Getting into a war of petty bulls*** (and I find these housing, class and richie-rich arguments just that) only helps McCain.

 

Kerry thought the same thing in 2004. Unfortunately, that didn't get him very far. The truth is that negative campaigning does work, and you have to be ready to use it when the opportunity strikes. The trick for Obama, and any candidate who prides himself on positive campaigning is to not let the negative outweigh the positive.

[lostfan]

Wow. The snark level in the Buster seems to have dramatically increased in the last 24 hours.

And it's unfortunate. It was really refreshing posting in here the last few weeks.

[kapkomet]

This opinion piece says pretty well what I've been trying to say for weeks.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle4582920.ece

 

From The Times

 

August 22, 2008

 

‘Yes we can'? Make that: ‘Oops, we may not'

 

Barack Obama suddenly looks vulnerable. And the more the focus is on him, the less likely he is to become president

 

Gerard Baker

 

 

There's trouble in paradise. Cancel the coronation. Send back the commemorative medals. Put those “Yes We Can” T-shirts up on eBay. Keep the Change.

 

Barack Obama's historic procession to the American presidency has been rudely interrupted. The global healing he promised is in jeopardy. If you're prone to emotional breakdown, you might want to take a seat before I say this. He might not win.

 

How can it be, you ask? Didn't we see him just last month speaking to 200,000 adoring Germans in Berlin? Didn't he get the red carpet treatment in France - France of all places? Doesn't every British politician want to be seen clutching the hem of his garment?

 

All true. But as cruel geography and the selfish designs of the American Founding Fathers would have it, Europeans don't get to choose the US president. Somewhere along the way to the Obama presidency, somebody forgot to ask the American people.

 

And wouldn't you know it, they insist on looking this gift thoroughbred in the mouth. Who'd have thought it? You present them with the man who deigns to deliver them from their plight and they want to sit around and ask hard questions about who he is and what he believes and where he might actually take the country. The ingrates!

 

So we arrive this weekend at the true starting line of the US presidential race and the rituals that begin the real election campaign: the selection of the vice-presidential running-mates, and the back-to-back party nominating conventions. A year and a half after the warm-ups began, the two remaining candidates are more or less tied. Senator Obama's summer lead in the opinion polls has evaporated. John McCain, that grumpy, grisly, gnarled old Republican, that Gollum to Senator Obama's Bilbo Baggins, might, just might, actually win this thing.

 

What happened?

 

Of course, the conventional view is that it's all the work of that most terrifyingly effective piece of artillery since the invention of the howitzer, the Republican Attack Machine.

 

The credulous American voter, we're told, has been subjected in the last month to a televised blitzkrieg of right-wing lies about the hapless Democrat. He's not patriotic. He might be a Muslim. He might not even be American. He probably is a Muslim. There's no evidence he's ever said anything nice about Michael Phelps. He goes to the mosque on Fridays. If Obama's the leader of the free world, it won't be the Caucasian Georgia the Russians invade but the one sandwiched between Florida and South Carolina. Gullible Americans are going to fall for it, just as they fell for Stupid George W over Brilliant Al Gore and Brave John Kerry.

 

Forgive me for interrupting this reverie but in the real world something else is going on.

 

In the reality-based community the rest of us inhabit, the first thing to be said about the current state of the race is that the actual shift in the campaign's dynamics is not quite as dramatic as the pundit class would have you believe. A month ago, according to an average of polls for Real ClearPolitics.com, Senator Obama had about a four-point lead over Senator McCain. This week the tally suggests the lead is about one percentage point.

 

The bigger change has occurred in perceptions about the race. A month ago the prevailing view among the wise was that Senator Obama would steadily increase his lead and by the time his convention concluded next week, it would be insurmountable.

 

But instead, it looks as though, even if he has a really good convention in Denver next week, and Hillary and Bill Clinton play the unlikely role of loyal followers, the race will still be close when the Republicans start their gathering in a week's time. Whatever happens, in other words. it looks like yet another close election.

 

Why is this? Why has the Democrat failed to capitalise on the mood of deep discontent within the country?

 

First, it's true that the negative campaigning by John McCain has hurt him somewhat. But there's nothing wrong with that. The 2008 presidential election has so far been a referendum on Senator Obama. it's perfectly reasonable for the Republicans to make the case against him, and the attacks have been fair. My account of the McCain campaign above was a caricature, of course. There's been no mention of Senator Obama's race or the silly fiction that he might be a Muslim.

 

The fact is that the 47-year-old Democrat, less than four years in the Senate, is still largely a blank page for American voters: a great orator and an attractive figure, but unknown and untested. The Republicans have been filling in some of the gaps and pointing out how thin his real biography is.

 

The second problem is that Senator Obama is having difficulty - curiously enough - with Democratic voters. Polls indicate that while Senator McCain has just about locked up the votes of those who supported other Republicans in the primary election, Senator Obama is still regarded with mistrust and dislike by large numbers of Hillary Clinton's former supporters.

 

For many of these working-class types, he's just a bit too cerebral, a little vague. His campaign lacks both substance and passion. While unemployment is rising, incomes are slipping fqarther behind rising inflation and house prices are falling, Senator Obama keeps talking about hope and change, keeps promising a new type of politics. These benighted Democratic voters don't really want a new type of politics. They want to know what exactly he's going to do to raise their living standards.

 

The irony for Senator Obama is that he has built a campaign on a pledge to put an end to cynicism in the political system, but the more he offers only vague promises of hope, the greater the danger that he increases voter cynicism about politicians in general and him in particular.

 

The third problem is that events have not helped the Democrats. The war in Georgia has emphasised that the world is a dangerous place, and that simply being willing to talk to your enemies, as Senator Obama sometimes seems to suggest, isn't going to keep your people safe.

 

The key to understanding the presidential campaign as it enters its phase of maximum intensity is this. The more the campaign is about the concerns of the American voter, especially the state of the economy but also the general anxiety about the direction of the country, the more likely they are to throw the Republicans out.

 

But the uncomfortable truth for the many devoted fans of Senator Obama is that the more the race is about him, the less likely he is to win it.

[bmags]

but times is biased for Obama remember?

[mr_genius]

Kerry thought the same thing in 2004. Unfortunately, that didn't get him very far. The truth is that negative campaigning does work, and you have to be ready to use it when the opportunity strikes. The trick for Obama, and any candidate who prides himself on positive campaigning is to not let the negative outweigh the positive.

 

He hasn't run a positive campaign, or at least he hasn't run on any type of real issues. all he does is read bumper sticker slogans off a tele-promter and attack McCain for having a rich wife. Not much of a strategy.

[mr_genius]

but times is biased for Obama remember?

 

lol

 

and one of the 5% of conservatives in the media gets a piece out and it's now proof of an unbiased media. classic argument that proves nothing

 

but i suppose The Times is a big 'celebrity watcher' type newspaper, so of course Obama is going to get big coverage (remember, he's the biggest celebrity in the world)

Edited August 22, 2008 by mr_genius

[bmags]

naw it just kind of shows, to me, your mindset. Any article in times positive for McCain doesn't register for you, but if you see any article pro Obama it triggers your brain reaffirms your beliefs of bias in major media outlets.

But I'd bet there is truth that to you the only unbiased media to you would be one that has no positive Obama coverage.

Edited August 22, 2008 by bmags

[Rex Kickass]

This is the London Times we're talking about btw.

[bmags]

meh, my mistake then. I can go pull up the go-to "why isn't Obama leading by more" "why does Obama have trouble with working class whites" Times articles.